EPA head Lisa Jackson to step down

Led push to enforce the Clean Air Act by dropping carbon emissions.

News outlets are reporting that Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, will not return for the second term of the Obama administration.

Jackson will probably be remembered as the point person for the first US attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. It wasn't necessarily a position that she—or Obama—chose. But partisan gridlock ensured that there would be no legislation addressing emissions, and Jackson inherited a Supreme Court decision from the Bush administration that indicated the Clean Air Act required some sort of action. Within months of the inauguration, Jackson's EPA used Bush-era research to issue an endangerment finding on greenhouse gasses. Three years later, that finding led to the first limits imposed on carbon dioxide emissions by large sources, limits that would severely curtail the construction of new coal plants.

By the time they were issued, however, a sharp fall in the price of natural gas was already doing more to limit the use of coal than any EPA regulation could. (Fracking, which led to the plunge in prices, was also the subject of some initial EPA oversight.)

Under Jackson's leadership, the EPA also negotiated with automakers to finalize a deal that was first cut as part of the auto bailout package. That agreement will cut carbon emissions by increasing the average fuel economy of cars sold in the US, and it marked the first time that such standards were raised in 20 years.

Whoever replaces Jackson will likely face a very different set of challenges. Most of the big decisions appear to have been made, but the lawsuits that will attempt to keep them from taking effect are probably just getting started.

We don't need the EPA. Each state is fully capable of setting their own environmental regulations.

I usually defer to states on such matters but when one state's policies can drastically affect the neighboring states I think we need some form of Federal oversight. For example, companies that can dump into the river or ocean in one state and then detrimentally affect the living conditions of people in the other.

We don't need the EPA. Each state is fully capable of setting their own environmental regulations.

Because air, rivers, lakes, and groundwater all respect state boundaries. Plus there's nothing carmakers love more than tailoring their product to the differing demands of every state. And it's not as though electrical grids cross state lines, right?

We don't need the EPA. Each state is fully capable of setting their own environmental regulations.

I usually defer to states on such matters but when one state's policies can drastically affect the neighboring states I think we need some form of Federal oversight. For example, companies that can dump into the river or ocean in one state and then detrimentally affect the living conditions of people in the other.

That's when a state sues that company into bankruptcy. You make it sound like states who are hurt by careless companies don't have any kind of recourse. They do. I have long wanted to see a state impacted like this get the balls to do this.

We don't need the EPA. Each state is fully capable of setting their own environmental regulations.

Yeah, thanks a lot, Nixon.

That's one thing I've never grokked about the (contemporary) left. (I say contemporary as this seems to be a phenomenon of the past 30 years or so.)

On the one hand, liberals are heavily engaged in local politics, so it's not like they don't believe in state governments. Yet their solution to everything is yet another big, useless bureaucracy out of Washington that is a fat juicy target for well-funded industry lobbyists.

Another big example of this: the Department of Education. Why?! What do they even *do*?

We don't need the EPA. Each state is fully capable of setting their own environmental regulations.

I usually defer to states on such matters but when one state's policies can drastically affect the neighboring states I think we need some form of Federal oversight. For example, companies that can dump into the river or ocean in one state and then detrimentally affect the living conditions of people in the other.

Historically, though, Federal oversight is usually Congress voting on an agreement that the states already hammered out. Best example of this is the Uniform Commercial Code.

All your school accreditation, for instance, is handled by groups of states. And, really, all the problems you're talking about are better handled, politically, by voters who are directly affected, than pushed out to Washington where it can be buried.

Yes because driving up the cost of energy production to the point of forcing energy producers out of business driving up the cost of EVERYTHING = common sense

/face-palm

NEWSFLASH: You don't have any common sense

Newsflash: you have no common sense.

The externalization of costs is bad, bad, bad as it conceals the true price of products. If you don't force people to pay their way for the pollution they create, then you create a perverse incentive to pollute, driving down the producer's cost, but not driving down the cost to society, making we, the taxpayer, pay the burden for the polluter.

All your school accreditation, for instance, is handled by groups of states. And, really, all the problems you're talking about are better handled, politically, by voters who are directly affected, than pushed out to Washington where it can be buried.

Yes, the recently adopted history curriculum by the Texas SBOE is a perfect example of states triumphing over those evil federal government bureaucrats. The SBOE sure showed them.

We don't need the EPA. Each state is fully capable of setting their own environmental regulations.

Yeah, thanks a lot, Nixon.

That's one thing I've never grokked about the (contemporary) left. (I say contemporary as this seems to be a phenomenon of the past 30 years or so.)

On the one hand, liberals are heavily engaged in local politics, so it's not like they don't believe in state governments. Yet their solution to everything is yet another big, useless bureaucracy out of Washington that is a fat juicy target for well-funded industry lobbyists.

Another big example of this: the Department of Education. Why?! What do they even *do*?

They allow unions to prevent the upgrading and fixing of our public education system. They allow the dumbing down of our public education system. It's sad when private schools do a better job of educating children using less money than we shower upon the drop-out factories we call public schools.

We don't need the EPA. Each state is fully capable of setting their own environmental regulations.

I usually defer to states on such matters but when one state's policies can drastically affect the neighboring states I think we need some form of Federal oversight. For example, companies that can dump into the river or ocean in one state and then detrimentally affect the living conditions of people in the other.

That's when a state sues that company into bankruptcy. You make it sound like states who are hurt by careless companies don't have any kind of recourse. They do. I have long wanted to see a state impacted like this get the balls to do this.

So if I follow the laws of state A's EPA but it effects State B anyway I should be sued for following the law? What's the point of having the law then?

They allow unions to prevent the upgrading and fixing of our public education system. They allow the dumbing down of our public education system. It's sad when private schools do a better job of educating children using less money than we shower upon the drop-out factories we call public schools.

'Drop-out factories', I like that.

Have any numbers to back up your statements in regards to the amount of money spent on private schools vs public schools? I'd love to see that.

I also love that half the comments are about this womans' appearance, the other half about how wrong the federal guberment is about everything of nothing

Interesting how this story fails to mention her (and her cronies) alleged violations of federal law by using private email to evade public accountability. This is likely the reason she is resigning. The House of Representatives has been pushing for a federal investigation, which Obama's Justice Dept has been ignoring.

They allow unions to prevent the upgrading and fixing of our public education system. They allow the dumbing down of our public education system. It's sad when private schools do a better job of educating children using less money than we shower upon the drop-out factories we call public schools.

'Drop-out factories', I like that.

Have any numbers to back up your statements in regards to the amount of money spent on private schools vs public schools? I'd love to see that.

I also love that half the comments are about this womans' appearance, the other half about how wrong the federal guberment is about everything of nothing

I spend about $8500 per year for my kid to go to private school, which is my state average per student spending. But since pulling my kid out of the public school, I can see a huge difference in what she is learning.

So, for the SAME price (for them, I'm still paying public school taxes), my daughter gets a superior education.

We don't need the EPA. Each state is fully capable of setting their own environmental regulations.

I usually defer to states on such matters but when one state's policies can drastically affect the neighboring states I think we need some form of Federal oversight. For example, companies that can dump into the river or ocean in one state and then detrimentally affect the living conditions of people in the other.

That's when a state sues that company into bankruptcy. You make it sound like states who are hurt by careless companies don't have any kind of recourse. They do. I have long wanted to see a state impacted like this get the balls to do this.

So if I follow the laws of state A's EPA but it effects State B anyway I should be sued for following the law? What's the point of having the law then?

If your actions harm someone the injured party should have a right to come after you. Be it in criminal or civil court. If you did something, knowingly or not, that hurt another party YOU should be held accountable. Simple enough for you? Corporations are persons after all and so are subject to the same laws.

They allow unions to prevent the upgrading and fixing of our public education system. They allow the dumbing down of our public education system. It's sad when private schools do a better job of educating children using less money than we shower upon the drop-out factories we call public schools.

'Drop-out factories', I like that.

Have any numbers to back up your statements in regards to the amount of money spent on private schools vs public schools? I'd love to see that.

I also love that half the comments are about this womans' appearance, the other half about how wrong the federal guberment is about everything of nothing

There have been stories over the years of private schools spending far less than the government spends per child in public schools and yet they have higher test scores, higher literacy rates, and higher graduation rates. If anyone really wishes to get educated on this then I would suggest you check out an excellent documentary on the public school system called Waiting For Superman. It covers all this and more. The public education system has failed and continues to fail our children. If you claim otherwise then PLEASE show us where private schools provide an inferior or at least equal. Do you know the graduation rate of public schools vs private schools? Have a look:

And lets not forget this hilarious fact. 40% of PUBLIC school teachers in Chicago send their kids to PRIVATE schools. If anyone wants/needs more data do some of your own research. Pretend you have a child and you care about the quality of education they receive. I didn't have to pretend.

Education in the US is similar to health care or gun control: every other western nation seems to do it right as a public service save for the US.

You would think that, after so many failures, these balkanized, nickel-and-diming, penny-wise/pound-foolish methods of public service delivery and regulation could be surrendered, but no, the drive is more private education, more private healthcare and more guns. Because, you know, the counterpoint of every other western nation's experience doesn't count for anything, and is T3h soc14lizm!!1 to boot...

Do your own research. There have been stories over the years of private schools spending far less than the government spends per child in public schools and yet they have higher test scores and higher literacy rates. If you really wish to get educated on this then do some of your own research. I would also suggest you check out n excellent documentary on the public school system called Waiting For Superman. It covers all this and more. The public education system has failed and continues to fail our children. If you claim otherwise then PLEASE show us where private schools provide an inferior or at least equal. Do you know the graduation rate of public schools vs private schools? I know you don't because if you did you wouldn't challenge what I said. Have a look:

[/quote]

Wow. The children of a self-selected group of parents who are particularly concerned about their education out-perform the general population. Who would have expected that?

The best counter to gun control laws lowering gun violence is across the border. You can also look at what happened in the UK. When they finally banned guns there gun crimes shot up. Why? Only law abiding citizens obey the law. Criminals don't give a rat's arse about the law.

Do your own research. There have been stories over the years of private schools spending far less than the government spends per child in public schools and yet they have higher test scores and higher literacy rates.

I will note that these are, in fact, stories.

The average private school actually has inferior educational quality to the average public school. Not all private schools are good, and many of them are actually very poor.

This surprises a lot of people.

Really, private schools are pretty bad for the country in general, as they take money away from public schools and yet provide an inferior on average education, often while leaving massive gaps in their children's knowledge base and indoctrinating them in very negative beliefs.

Do your own research. There have been stories over the years of private schools spending far less than the government spends per child in public schools and yet they have higher test scores and higher literacy rates.

I will note that these are, in fact, stories.

The average private school actually has inferior educational quality to the average public school. Not all private schools are good, and many of them are actually very poor.

This surprises a lot of people.

Really, private schools are pretty bad for the country in general, as they take money away from public schools and yet provide an inferior on average education, often while leaving massive gaps in their children's knowledge base and indoctrinating them in very negative beliefs.

Got some actual cites for this?

As for private schools taking away money, I call BS. People who send their kids to private schools are not exempt from paying school taxes. As far as I can tell, every kid in private school is actually net gain for the public school's budget.

To those comparing outcomes of public vs private schools, consider this:

1) A child's performance is highly related to parental involvement. Parents who send their children to private schools are paying a premium for a perceived improvement in the educational outcome. 2) Private schools can kick you out for underperformance or behavioral issues. Public schools cannot "leave a child behind". They must accept and try to educate all kids with all manners of physical, mental, or behavioral problems.

So comparing the average test scores between the two groups is obviously an apples to oranges comparison. I'm not suggesting one over the other. I'm trying to make sure we're all operating with the facts skewing a direct comparison.